Asignar roles a un usuario

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses an important behavioral aspect: it replaces the current role assignment. However, it does not mention other side effects (e.g., removal of existing roles, potential authorization requirements, or impact on user access). The absence of annotations increases the need for more disclosure, but the provided replacement note gives some transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core action and the key behavior (replacement). There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient and focused.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple assignment action, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the primary operation and the replacement behavior. There is no output schema to document, and error conditions or permission requirements are not explicitly stated, but these are not strictly necessary for basic usage. The context parameter remains underdocumented, which slightly reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes descriptions for all three parameters: id (user ID), roles (array of role IDs), and context (tenant context). While this covers the basics, the 'context' description is vague and does not clarify its purpose or allowed values, leaving some ambiguity in how to use the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('asigna roles a un usuario') and the specific resource (user and roles), and adds a crucial detail that it replaces the current role assignment. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the verb and object are specific enough to convey the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_role_permissions or assign_invitation_roles. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.